R v Chute (No 11) - [2019] ACTSC 91

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Chute (No 11)
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 91
Hearing Date:	4 April 2019
DecisionDate:	5 April 2019
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [23]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Historical child sexual offences – whether indecent assault followed by the infliction of corporal punishment constitutes “an offence involving actual or threatened violence” and therefore a “serious offence” for the purposes of s 319 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) – it does not CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Special hearing – whether appropriate to require accused person to submit to the jurisdiction of the ACAT – dementia patient with health problems – no utility in making orders requiring submission to ACAT
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 81, 318, 318(2), 318(2)(a), 318(2)(b), 319 Mental Health Act 2015 (ACT), ss 59, 67, 102, 109
Cases Cited:	R v Aleer [2016] ACTSC 75 R v Chute (No 4) [2018] ACTSC 259 R v Chute (No 7) [2019] ACTSC 67 R v Chute (No 10) [2019] ACTSC 73 R v Cross [2017] ACTSC 91; 319 FLR 288 R v McGuckin (No 2) [2014] ACTSC 365 R v Smith [2012] ACTSC 146; 269 FLR 233
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) John William Chute (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel V Conliffe (Crown) G Walsh (Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Greg Walsh & Co (Accused)
File Number:	SCC 178 of 2016

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

Following a special hearing in this matter, I gave my reasons for non-acquittal of the accused on 14 of the 16 counts which he faced: R v Chute (No 10) [2019] ACTSC 73. In my reasons I made reference to the consequences of a non-acquittal saying that: “For offences of the type charged in the present case, s 318 [of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)] describes the powers of the court if the judge is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused engaged in the conduct required for the offence charged.” I set out the provisions of s 318(2) and made some comment on the difference between that provision and s 319: at [12]. The difference between the two sections is that s 319 applies to a “serious offence” whereas s 318 applies to a “non-serious offence”.

The Crown now contends that one of the offences is a “serious offence” and that therefore s 319 applies in relation to that offence. That is the offence described in R v Chute (No 10) as count 16 involving Complainant 6. The Crown accepts that each of the other offences is a “non-serious offence”. The significance of there being a “serious offence” is that for a “serious offence” the court is obliged to make one of the two orders set out in s 319, whereas for a “non-serious offence” the making of orders is discretionary.

The accused had a religious name of Brother Kostka. In these reasons he is referred to as the accused,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Chute (No 11)

Details

AGLC: R v Chute (No 11) [2019] ACTSC 91
Case: [2019] ACTSC 91
Decision Date: 5 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Chute (No 11) involved the respondent, Mr Chute, facing charges related to historical child sexual offences. The matter was before the court to determine whether certain acts constituted an offence involving actual or threatened violence, thereby classifying it as a "serious offence" under section 319 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriateness of requiring Mr Chute, who suffers from dementia and other health issues, to submit to the jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (ACAT).

The legal issues before the court included whether the combination of indecent assault and the infliction of corporal punishment constituted an offence involving actual or threatened violence, thus qualifying as a serious offence. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether it was appropriate to require Mr Chute to submit to the jurisdiction of the ACAT given his medical condition and the practical implications of such a requirement. The court had to balance the rights of the accused with the need to ensure that the proceedings could proceed in a manner that was just and practical.

The court found that the combination of indecent assault and the infliction of corporal punishment did not constitute an offence involving actual or threatened violence, and therefore did not amount to a serious offence. In reaching this conclusion, the court examined the statutory language and the nature of the offences alleged. Additionally, the court determined that it was not appropriate to require Mr Chute to submit to the jurisdiction of the ACAT, given his dementia and other health issues. The court found that there was no utility in making such orders, as it would not serve any practical purpose and could potentially cause undue hardship to Mr Chute.

The final orders of the court were that the charges against Mr Chute did not constitute a serious offence as defined by section 319 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), and that it was not appropriate to require him to submit to the jurisdiction of the ACAT. These findings were based on the specific circumstances of the case and the health status of the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [23]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.